“The decision by Judge Lewis is seriously flawed. It completely fails to take into consideration the rights of minority voters or to recognize federal law, specifically the 1964 Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights and clearly supersedes the state’s Fair Districts standards.

“After the Florida Legislature conducted several dozen hearings throughout the state of Florida in a bi-partisan fashion to include voter participation and input on their representation, the Legislature drew the current plan and it passed both the House and Senate.

“Prior to the 1992 election, Florida had not had a federal African American representative since Josiah Thomas Walls, in 1871, a time span of 129 years. Nationally, prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, between the years of 1832-1965 (133 years), there were only 28 elected African Americans. From 1965-Present (49 years), there were/are 103 elected African Americans (four times as many, in nearly one-third the time span).

A circuit court judge threw out Florida's congressional redistricting map Thursday ruling that the Florida Legislature allowed for a "secret, organized campaign" by partisan operatives to subvert the redistricting process in violation of the state constitution.

Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ordered two of the state's 27 districts to be redrawn to bring the map into compliance with the state's new Fair District amendments.

The 41-page ruling, issued late Thursday, raises questions now about whether the congressional map will be redrawn before the November elections or revised later. Any change in the political lines for Congress would have a ripple effect on other races.

The ruling in the lawsuit brought by a coaltion of voters and the League of Women Voters is expected to be repealed and ultimately decided by the Florida Supreme Court.

Lewis judge rejected challenges to districts in South Florida and that Tampa Bay but said that District 5, held by Democrat U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown of Jacksonville, and District 10, held by Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Webster of Winter Garden, "will need to be redrawn, as will any other districts affected thereby."

"We were extremely gratified,'' said David King, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Lewis blasted the role of the political consultants saying "they made a mockery of the Legislature's transparent and open process of redistricting" while "going to great lengths to conceal from the public their paln and their participation in it."

"They were successful in their efforts to influence the redistricting process and the congressional plan under review here,'' he wrote. "And they might have successfully concealed their scheme and their actions from the public had it not been for the Plaintiffs determined efforts to uncover it in this case."

He concluded, however, that the circumstantial evidence proved that the political operatives "managed to find other avenues...to infiltrate and influence the Legislature."

He drew no conclusions that House Speaker Will Weatherford, former House Speaker Dean Cannon, and Senate President Don Gaetz were aware of the scheme, but he raised doubts that they were not in some way complicit. Lewis detailed the involvement of Cannon's aide, Kirk Pepper, and repeated evidence that came out at trial about Pepper forwarding draft maps to GOP operative Marc Reichelderfer.

Lewis also noted that Legislative leaders and the political operatives destroyed almost all of their emails and other documents related to redistricting and concluded that the circumstantial evidence surrounding all of those developments, and the evidence that the consultants attempted to influence the same districts he has found problematic, proved the GOP operatives were trying to influence the process.

"There is no legal duty on the part of the Legislature to preserve these records, but you have to wonder why they didn't,'' he wrote. "Litigation over their plans was 'a moral certainty' as their lawyers put it earlier in the case, and intent woudl be a key issue in any challenge."

He also defended his decision to allow the inclusion of documents from political consultant Pat Bainter into the record. Lewis rejected Bainter's claim that the documents were trade secret but that issue is now on appeal before the Florida Supreme Court, so Lewis closed the courtroom and sealed the documents to allow discussion of them during trial.

Lewis said they provided the evidence needed by the plaintiffs to show there was a secret, shadow redistricting process being conducted by the political operatives. "The evidence was highly relevant and not available from other sources,'' he wrote "....to show how extensive and organized" the shadow map-making process was "and what lengths they went in order to conceal what they were doing."

Lewis tore apart the defense of the most controversial district in Florida's map -- District 5, a snake-shaped that runs from Jacksonville to Orlando that was first drawn by a court 20 years ago and which Brown has represented since then. Brown was so intent on leaving the district unchanged, that she challenged the constitutionality of Florida Fair District amendments adoped by voter in 2010, but she lost.

He said the decision by Republican leaders to increase the black voting age population in the district "was not compelling" but concluded it was done to improve the performance of surrounding districts to benefit Republicans.

Lewis also concluded that the trail of emails and secret documents, which GOP operatives fought to keep out of the record, proved that "Republican political consultants or operatives did in fact conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process.

"They accomplished this by writing scripts for and organizing groups of people to attend the public hearings to advocate for adoption of certain components or characteristics in the maps, and by submitting maps and partial maps through the public process, all with the intention of obtaining enacted maps for the State House and Senate and for Congress that would favor the Republican Party," Lewis wrote.

He concluded, however, that the legislative staff involved in drawing the maps were not part of this scheme and said that staffers Alex Kelly, John Guthrie and Jason Poreda were "straightforward, frank and credible."

Lewis commended District 10 for following the requirement that districts be compact but he noted that an appendage added late in the process was "drawn to benefit the Republican Party and the incumbent," Rep. Webster.

He rejected claims by lawyers for the Legislature that a neighboring district was needed to be created to elected Hispanics and the appendage, which moved 80,000 voting age population out of Webster's district and another 71,000 into it, was needed to enable the partisan advantage.

"The appendage benefited the incumbent Representative Webster by returning to District 10 territory that was part of his benchmark District 8 and improved the Republican performan of District 10 in two out of three elections relied upon by the Florida Supreme Court,'' Lewis wrote.

Lewis also said the meetings held between legislators, political operatives and their staff involving Washington D.C. redistricting expert Ben Ginsberg raised some issues "that are troubling."

He noted that while the political consultants could have submitted maps, and showed intense interest in designing the maps, no on in the Legislature raised questions about why they didn't.

"I would think that the staff and legislative leaders would find it extremely strange, that they might even ask why not. But they didn't,'' he wrote.

Lewis also raised questions about the decision by House and Seante leaders to ignore the potential political performance of most districts they drew and why they didn't concern themselves with the authors of publicly-submitted maps.

"Turning a blind eye to the probability of improper intent in these maps is not the same as neutrality,'' he wrote.

The unprecedented rulings keep on coming. A divided Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the question of whether 537 pages of documents of political consultant Pat Bainter should have been introduced in a lawsuit by a coalition of voters groups challenging the state's congressional redistricting maps.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said it would decide the case at the urging of the appeals court last week. It ordered that briefs be filed on a schedule, concluding on July 31. The majority offered no reason for its decision but Chief Justice Ricky Polston, who was joined in the dissent by Justice Charles Canady, scolded the other justices for accepting the case.

The challenge to the state's congressional districts was brought by a coalition of voting groups led by the League of Women Voters. Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis is expected to rule on the case any day. The parties submitted their final arguments to Lewis nearly two weeks ago, but the fate of 537 pages of documents produced by Bainter and his Gainesville-based consulting firm, Data Targeting, Inc., remains in dispute.

The coalition of voters challenging Florida's congressional districts filed a 30-page closing argument Wednesday, peppering the brief with blacked out sections that attempt to shield references to the political consultant Pat Bainter and his company.

They also filed their version of what they would like to see Judge Terry Lewis order, when he rules on the case by the end of the month.

The defendants, the Florida House and Senate, will file their answer on Friday. More to come.

Was a crime committed when a redistricting map was filed using the allegedly stolen identity of an individual?

That's the question left unanswered by Alex Posada, the former Florida State University student who testified under oath last week in the redistricting trial that his name was used to submit a congressional redistricting map without his permission. The map using his name became the foundation of several key portions of the final congressional map approved by legislators.

A group of voters is challenging the constitutionality of the 2012 congressional maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature. But when it comes to the authorities in charge, none of them -- all Republicans -- is calling for a separate criminal investigation into identity theft or the prospect that someone lied.

"We are not going to comment during the ongoing trial. We are in the middle of litigation and are letting the process continue,'' said Ryan Duffy, spokesman for House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel.

"As this is ongoing litigation, which our office is not involved in, it would not be appropriate to comment at this time,'' said Jenn Meale, spokeswoman for Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“This matter is in the hands of the judiciary,’’ said John Tupps, spokesman for Gov. Rick Scott.

And Raoul Cantero, the former Florida Supreme Court justice who is representing the Senate in the trial said this:

“The Legislature’s duty is to draw districts in compliance with the Florida Constitution and federal law. The name associated with a particular public map is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether that map provides helpful ideas in drawing constitutionally compliant maps.”

Added Katie Betta, spokeswoman for Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville: "Additionally, I would point out that we have no indication that a rule or provision of law was violated. If a law was violated, the State Attorney’s Office would certainly be better able to launch such an investigation."

We asked Willie Meggs, state attorney for the Second District in Leon County, to respond. He noted that if identity theft occurred, a law was violated, but he needs law enforcement to investigate it first.

"It should be something for the FBI to investigate or FDLE to investigate,'' he said. "We'd be happy to prosecute if there's an investigation but it's got to be FDLE or the FBI -- and will they investigate? Lord only knows."

Gretl Plessinger, spokeswoman for FDLE, said no one has called for an investigation.

But the lawsuit accusing legislative leaders of improperly drawing some congressional districts — chiefly for Republican gain — has dug up enough evidence to show that politicians’ talk about government in the sunshine is a big joke.

“It was an extremely open and transparent process,” Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford, after giving testimony in the redistricting lawsuit, deadpanned to reporters.

In a one-hour deposition in the offices of the plaintiff's attorney in the redistricting case, 24-year-old Alex Posada, whose name was faked as the author of a pivotal congressional map, began with an apology.

"We spoke a few weeks ago - I forget specifically when - but you had asked me if I'd submitted some maps and I misled you and I just wanted to apologize for that,'' Posada said to Vince Falcone, attorney for King, Blackwell, Zehnder and Wermuth, the firm representing the League of Women Voters in the lawsuit challenging the state's congressional maps.

Photo: Posada's Linked In account as entered into testimony

Posada is the pivotal figure in the developing mystery over the legislature's maps. Legislators and their staff testified in the ongoing trial that significant districts from a map submitted under Posada's name became the foundation for the final congressional map. Republican Party of Florida map drawer, Frank Terraferma, has testified that at least seven districts from a congressional map he drew were "identical" to districts that appeared in Posada's map.

Who drew Posada's map and why it was submitted under false pretenses remains a mystery. The voters groups allege in their lawsuit that legislators allowed political consultants to conduct a “shadow” redistricting process that used go-betweens to create public maps intended to benefit Republican incumbents and candidates in violation of the Fair District amendments to the Florida Constitution.

The steady drip of new revelations continued in the ongoing redistricting trial on Friday as a Republican Party of Florida official was called back to testify about a redistricting meeting at Republican National Committee headquarters with Florida legislators.

Frank Terraferma, a RPOF official, testified via telephone in day nine of the trial over the state's congressional maps. Plaintiffs called him after receiving new documents subpoenaed from the RNC and ordered produced by a Washington, D.C. appellate court on Thursday.

Terraferma was asked about an email from Jessica Furst Johnson of the RNC staff that announced a Florida leadership meeting for June 15, 2011 -- before the redistricting maps were drawn and the public hearings on the redistricting process had begun. Attendees at the meeting were listed as: Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, Senate President Elect Don Gaetz, Chris Money, Weatherford's chief of staff, Chris Clark, Gaetz's chief of staff, and Frank Terraferma who was identified as "genius map drawer."

Day Seven in Florida's precedent-setting redistricting trial may look like a sleeper for the few that are watching the soporific play-by-play on The Florida Channel but for the cognoscenti, the plot keeps getting thicker.

At stake is the 2012 congressional maps drawn by the Republican-led legislature and being challenged by a group of voters, led by the League of Women Voters and a group of Democrat-leaning plaintiffs. The court awaits the arrival of the secret documents from political operative Pat Bainter, unless the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in. Here are some developments from Wednesday:

Plot line #1: What did the presiding officers know?

Dean Cannon, the former House speaker during the 2012 redistricting session, testified under oath that he didn't know that his redistricting director was meeting with Washington redistricting attorney Ben Ginsberg, GOP political operatives Rich Heffley, Marc Reichelderfer and members of the House and Senate staff at Republican Party of Florida headquarters in December 2010 to discuss redistricting. But, had he been told, he said, he would have been "comfortable" with it.

“It was a good idea for anyone who had been involved or had been involved to get together with staff and legal counsel to figure out the rules of the road,’’ he said.

Reichelderfer testified last week that he attended the meeting to see if political consultants would "have a seat at the table" and current House Speaker Will Weatherford, who was then House redistricting chairman, testified they were told they wouldn't.

Plaintiffs allege that Republican political consultants conspired with GOP staff to conduct a "shadow" redistricting process that used operatives to draw maps and have them submitted by members of the public. They claim that those maps then became the foundation of the legislature's final redistricting maps.

Not so fast. The ball has some bounce left. GOP political consultant Pat Bainter has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the order by the Florida Supreme Court over the release of documents in the ongoing redistricting trial.

Florida's high court ruled 5-2 late Tuesday that 538 pages of emails, maps and planning documents of Bainter and his Gainesville-based political consulting firm must be allowed into the record – but only if the courtroom is closed. The ruling came even before a written opinion had been completed by the First District Court of Appeal and Bainter claims the forced disclosure of what he considers "trade secrets" will have a chilling effect on his First Amendment rights.

On Wednesday, Bainter's attorney appeared in trial court and asked that the testimony of Bainter, and GOP political consultant Rich Heffley, wait until next week to give the federal court time to rule. Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis said no. The Florida Supreme Court's ruling will hold, he said, until he is told to do otherwise.

"If it's not relevant, it’s not admitted,'' Lewis told Kent Safriet, Bainter's attorney. "…Your interest in not having it admitted is not the same as whether something is relevant or not. If somebody doesn't object, they obviously think it's relevant. Whether you think it's relevant or your client thinks it's relevant is not the issue."

Safriet argued in 31-page appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that disclosing the documents will violate Bainter's First Amendment rights and force him to disclose trade secrets. The information he wants kept from disclosure includes "names, contact information, and internal deliberations" of Bainter and his team as well as their employees, clients, and "other like-minded individuals regarding the redistricting process." Other documents include "data, analysis, and impressions crucial to [Data Targeting's] business as political consultants" as well as "grassroots members" and insight into his direct mail capabilities.

He argued that disclosure would harm Bainter's financial interests because competitors could "pick off" clients and cause irreparable harm. He also suggested that Bainter may be not answer "questions related to these privileged nad confidential materials" and could therefore be held in contempt of court.

"Disclosure of the privileged and confidential documents at trial (regardless of whether the proceedings are temporarily sealed) would chill the Applicants’ ability (along with that of other concerned citizens) to organize and participate with others in an effort to petition their government generally, and participate in Florida’s decennial redistricting process specifically,'' Safriet wrote in the emergency request.

The emergency appeal to the nation's highest court continues what has been nearly two-years of legal battles over the documents held by Bainter, the owner of Data Targeting, a GOP political consulting firm. His lawyers say that he and his partners, Matt Mitchell and Michael Sheehan "are caught in the crossfire through non-party subpoenas and discovery."

The plaintiffs allege that Bainter and his partners conspired with GOP consultants and legislative staff to create a "shadow" redistricting process that attempted to protect incumbents and Republican candidates in violation of the Fair District amendments to the state constitution.

Bainter, whose legal bills are being paid by the Republican Party of Florida, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should issue an emergency stay "to keep the proverbial cat in the bag" and to preserve his ability to later petition this court if it wants to appeal any ruling out of Florida.

"The Applicants are simply political consultants,'' Bainter's lawyers write. "They align with the Republican Party and conservative causes, and as a result are thus vilified by the Democratic-Respondents. But this does not mean that the Non-Parties conspired to violate the law as Respondents suggest."